US helicopter attacks Iraqi school killing 7 children

Post Reply New Topic

US soldier jailed for Iraqi slayings
March 20, 2007 - 12:04PM

A US soldier was sentenced to 10 years in prison today after a court-martial found him guilty of killing three Iraqi detainees who were freed and told to run before being shot, officials at Fort Campbell in Kentucky said.

Sergeant Raymond Girouard, 24, of Sweetwater, Tennessee, had been charged with premeditated murder and other offences that could have drawn a life sentence; but the military jury hearing his case convicted him on Friday of negligent homicide, a lesser offence.

The sentence is subject to review by the commanding general at the post, and he could be paroled after serving about a third of the 10 year sentence, a spokesman said.

Girouard led a squad in May 2006 during a raid on a suspected insurgent camp near Thar Thar lake, southwest of Tikrit, when the killings occurred.

Three other soldiers under his command who were also charged with the deaths made plea agreements earlier and have been sentenced. Two received 18 year prison sentences and a third got nine months in jail.

The three had said Girouard ordered them to shoot the men.

He had said he was under orders to kill all men of military age, but denied ordering the slayings.

During an August hearing in Iraq that led to the charges, a witness testified he saw the prisoners trying to run away at full sprint, some with their blindfolds down, when they were shot.

The case is one of a number from the Iraq war in which US military personnel were accused of crimes against Iraqi civilians.

Marine: Squad leader shot unarmed Iraqis
May 09, 2007 11:39 PM

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif.
A Marine sergeant says a squad leader shot five Iraqi men as they stood with their hands in the air and then told other troops to lie about it.



Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz testified at a preliminary military hearing for one of four Marines accused of failing to investigate the deaths.

Dela Cruz says he saw the men standing by a white car moments after a roadside bomb struck their convoy in November 2005. He says the squad leader Frank Wuterich then fired about six to eight rounds at the men.

An attorney for the sergeant says the account is false. He adds that Dela Cruz gave investigators up to five different versions of events.

The hearing is part of an Article 32 investigation, the military's equivalent to a grand jury proceeding.

http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/nnews/news2.shtml

Notice the words "after a court martial found him guilty."

10 years may very well be too lenient (especially with three people killed), although I guess without knowing more about the case it's hard to know entirely. I support the use of the death penalty for for premeditated murder by military personal.



"Testified at a preliminary hearing."

Again, the legal process is going forward. I am not saying these things are good things. They clearly aren't. But they aren't something new in warfare, or unique to the armies of the United States. In fact the American army in the twentieth century has a better human rights record then most. It also has a better record today then in past conflicts.

Bad things happen in a war zone. Its not the fault of the soldiers but the ones who sent them.

That would be Bush.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.c ... emID/15689

I can't argue about this stuff but I do find it fascinating to read. I'd rather ask a few questions to try to figure out what people think and maybe advance the discussion.

Anybody feel free to respond, but on these I would be interested in getting a response from jimservo and other "war supporters", if I can categorize you that way.

1. Do you think the Iraq war was a good idea?

2. What do you think is the best possible outcome of the Iraq war?

3. What is the estimated total cost in American casualties to achieve the answer from #2.

4. Is it fair to catgorize you as an "Iraq war supporter".

Thanks!

I have no comment on George W. Australia has a (relatively small) involvement are are part of the "coalition", so my comments are in regard to Australia

1. Do you think the Iraq war was a good idea?
No. We are either led by idiots or completely lied to about the reasons for the war.

2. What do you think is the best possible outcome of the Iraq war?
Split up the country into various regions, according to the ethnic/religion of the people

3. What is the estimated total cost in American casualties to achieve the answer from #2.
no idea

4. Is it fair to catgorize you as an "Iraq war supporter".
No, but wish to give moral support to the soldiers on the ground who were sent there based on lies from politicians.

ImpeachBush.org

If a soldier commits a war crime himself, violating the orders he was given, then it is his own fault, and he must be punished.

If the leaders ordered war crimes to be committed it is the leaders fault and they must be punished, as well as those who consciously and willingly, without threat of injury to self, or family, carried out the acts.

Well said.

I tend to agree more with the quote from "Apocalypse Now" When Martin Sheen's character "Captain Benjamin L. Willard" talked about his mission to get Marlon Brando's character "Colonel Kurtz, Den" In which he said something like;

I'm glad to answer your questions to the best that I can. I think "war supporters" is fair enough.



The best way to answer that question I think is to ask applying what I thought before the invasion, and the answer to that question was yes. Does the war look like such a good idea today, in retrospect?

Why did I think the war would we success in 2003 and why is my belief more pessimistic now? OK, first my beliefs in 2003: First let's get the WMD issue out of the way since that has been debated so much. I think this was a result of intelligence failures, lack of human resources in intelligence, the way Saddam's own government operated, things we are still not aware of, and things we never may be fully aware of. My intelluctual opponents believe that the primarily issue of important is that Bush/Cheney/Rove/ect. lied to the country, or pushed intelligence to get the country into war. I do not believe the evidence bears the out, and I am fully willing to debate that again.

Now, the invasion, and occupation itself. The initial invasion was actually very rapid and successful (documented in Keegan's The Iraq War). The Iraqi army did not fight as melt away, and go home. There was a brief period, despite the looting, of comparative calm, however it is entirely clear that the American political and military was caught off guard by the guerrilla campaign which erupted inside Iraq. I myself was not entirely prepared for what occurred, with bombings of civilians on such a massive scale. Despite all there seemed to be a reverse by 2005 as the democratic process took effect. But the military tactics were inadequately tradition until fairly recently and still much of the old (as well as new politically correct) culture has taken hold.

So was the Iraqi war a good idea? I still believe that the course Bush took was strategically correct, and indeed required in the post-September 11 era. However, the tactical mistakes early in the Iraq campaign could very well, in the event of a forced U.S. withdraw, end of leaving a worse situation then had existed originally.



This is a tough question for me to answer. The military counterinsurgency campaign has made some strides, however military successes will not matter if the rug is pulled under then politically. I am rather pessimistic, and I am trying to run through I best case scenario but it seems difficult. hmm...

1. The House and Senate are currently working on a war funding bill. The bill they pass, and that is signed leans heavily towards the Senate version
2. The Iraqi counterinsurgency campaign continues to be successful
3. The Iraqi parliament does something sort of reform like, like not taking a three-month vacation
4. When Iraq war debates comes up again, the Dems worry (again) about people thinking they are "soft" are the counterinsurgency continues, thus allowing war funding to continue.
5. Pattern repeats until finally the insurgency is rendered weak enough funding is no longer an issue, and we can withdraw. (wars are hard)

My worry is the short period of time between that is coming up, whatever drop in violences or reforms will occur will not be enough and the media coverage will be so skewed it won't matter. It may not matter anyway, at allot of war opponents do believe firmly the war is wrong, and that it is a U.S. presence that is causing the violence (including the current al-Qaeda presence).

In the end, the U.S. may have no choice but to withdraw despite the likely disastrous effects on the United States' national security. An example of where this could come from came from (Iranian puppet) al-Sadr of the Iraqi army who claimed (apparently falsely) in a letter to Prime Minister al-Malilaki that he had the backing of the majority of Iraqi MPs for a time table for a U.S. withdrawal and for a cap on U.S. troops in the country. Despite the fact that there is history of the Iranians attempting to buy off Iraqi officials, if the Iraqi parliament told off to leave, they is very little we could do about it but suggest otherwise, but in the end comply.



I can't give you a firm single number. There were 3.9 deaths per day last month, and 21.1 wounded (which, of course includes missing limbs, brain damage, ect...) (a "surge" month). The highest month of fatalities during the presence in Iraq (not including the invasion) was 4.67/day. If that's what it takes to avoid regional war, possible genocide, and terrorist training camps, then so be it.



Yes, although the historian in me personally feel that the "Iraq War (or Second Persian Gulf War)" itself should be classified and the post-war insurgency battles another.

None of us can judge the guys on the ground being shot at and seeing their comrades blown up. Its not black and white issues. And if you consider the initial attack legal (without support of the UN) which killed tens of thousands (Tommy Franks says 30,000) and well over 1M refugees, what's the big deal about a few more Iraqi casulties?

I understand you, when 3 million Iraqis are killed then a few thousand extra makes no odds and to punish our soldiers whom are stressed seems a bit petty.

But then Bazza that is why Iraqis are regarded as Untermenschen by people like you. Have you considered regarding Iraqis as humans and not insects, this way the few more dead Iraqis or collaterals whom were murdered to vent pent up stress, i wouldnt call it aggression as such, would you i mean its just young lads doing thir bit innit.

lol, maybe the dead Rakis might object or their famillys.

Tough Bazza because 90 percent of Iraqis support the cleansing of Iraq of your vermin soldiers and 800 attacks per week are taking your boys out.